Rättskraft, resning och EU – Unionsrättens krav på omprövning
(2020) LAGF03 20201Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Syftet med uppsatsen är att utreda hur långtgående krav unionsrätten ställer på möjligheten att upphäva eller ompröva lagakraftvunna avgöranden som strider mot unionsrätten. Uppsatsens syfte är också att undersöka hur HD:s avgörande i mål Ö 5731-18 förhåller sig till de krav som följer av unionsrätten. För att fullgöra syftet använder sig uppsatsen av en EU-rättslig metod.
I avsaknad av unionslagstiftning om processuella regler är det upp till medlemsstaterna att fritt utforma dessa. Detta utgör den nationella processuella autonomin. De nationella reglerna får dock varken behandla unionsrätten mindre förmånligt (likvärdighetsprincipen) eller göra det omöjligt eller orimligt svårt för enskilda att tillvarata sina unionsrättigheter... (More) - Syftet med uppsatsen är att utreda hur långtgående krav unionsrätten ställer på möjligheten att upphäva eller ompröva lagakraftvunna avgöranden som strider mot unionsrätten. Uppsatsens syfte är också att undersöka hur HD:s avgörande i mål Ö 5731-18 förhåller sig till de krav som följer av unionsrätten. För att fullgöra syftet använder sig uppsatsen av en EU-rättslig metod.
I avsaknad av unionslagstiftning om processuella regler är det upp till medlemsstaterna att fritt utforma dessa. Detta utgör den nationella processuella autonomin. De nationella reglerna får dock varken behandla unionsrätten mindre förmånligt (likvärdighetsprincipen) eller göra det omöjligt eller orimligt svårt för enskilda att tillvarata sina unionsrättigheter (effektivitetsprincipen).
EU-domstolen vidhåller rättskraftsprincipens viktiga roll för en stabil rättsordning. Unionsrätten kräver därför inte att nationella domstolar ska ompröva lagakraftvunna avgöranden. Men EU-domstolen har i Lucchini och Fallimento Olimpiclub dömt att unionsrätten utgjorde hinder för att tillämpa de nationella reglerna om rättskraft. Omständigheterna i de aktuella fallen gjorde att rättskraftsprincipen inte kunde anses äga företräde framför effektivitetsprincipen. I frånvaro av sådana särskilda omständigheter krävs det istället att omprövning är möjligt enligt nationella regler. En sådan möjlighet ska då ges företräde i enlighet med likvärdighets- och effektivitetsprincipen.
HD:s avgörande begränsade möjligheten till resning enbart i fall där nationell domstol uppenbart dömt i strid med EU-domstolens tolkning i ett för målet inhämtat förhandsavgörande. I sin argumentation gav HD nationell processuell autonomi stor vikt och var i övrigt tyst om de unionsrättsliga skyldigheterna. Det går därför att ifrågasätta huruvida HD:s dom är i linje med vad som följer av unionsrättens krav. (Less) - Abstract
- The purpose of this paper is to examine how far-reaching demands EU law places on national courts to reconsider decisions having the authority of res judicata to remedy a judgment incompatible with EU law. Furthermore, the purpose is also to examine how the Swedish supreme court's judgment in case Ö 5731-18 aligns with the demands of EU law. To answer the raised questions, the paper uses the methodology of EU law.
In the absence of EU legislation, it is for each member state to lay down its own procedural rules. This constitutes the principle of national procedural autonomy. The procedural rules governing rights of EU law must not be any less favourable than those governing similar national actions (principle of equivalence), nor... (More) - The purpose of this paper is to examine how far-reaching demands EU law places on national courts to reconsider decisions having the authority of res judicata to remedy a judgment incompatible with EU law. Furthermore, the purpose is also to examine how the Swedish supreme court's judgment in case Ö 5731-18 aligns with the demands of EU law. To answer the raised questions, the paper uses the methodology of EU law.
In the absence of EU legislation, it is for each member state to lay down its own procedural rules. This constitutes the principle of national procedural autonomy. The procedural rules governing rights of EU law must not be any less favourable than those governing similar national actions (principle of equivalence), nor render it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred upon individuals by EU law (principle of effectiveness).
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) maintains the importance of res judicata to ensure the stability of the legal order. Consequently, EU law does not require national courts to disapply national rules which confirm the finality of judgments. However, the ECJ has in its rulings in Lucchini and Fallimento Olimpiclub stated that union law under the certain circumstances precludes the application of national rules on res judicata. The circumstances held such extensive obstacles to the effectiveness of EU law that the interest of finality could not be justified. In the absence of certain circumstances, there needs to be applicable national procedural rules on retrial to render the situation compatible with EU law. If that possibility exists, it must prevail under the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.
The Swedish supreme court's decision restrained the possibility of retrial to cases where national courts have manifestly diverged from the ECJ's interpretation in a preliminary ruling connected to the case. In its judgment the supreme court emphasized the national procedural autonomy and was otherwise quiet about additional obligations under EU law. Therefore, one might argue that the Swedish supreme court's judgment is not fully uniform with EU law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9010830
- author
- Eriksson, Mathias LU
- supervisor
-
- Jacob Öberg LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20201
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- EU-rätt, Processrätt, Nationell processuell autonomi, Likvärdighetsprincipen, Effektivitetsprincipen, Rättskraft, Resning
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9010830
- date added to LUP
- 2020-09-19 21:56:37
- date last changed
- 2020-09-19 21:56:37
@misc{9010830,
abstract = {{The purpose of this paper is to examine how far-reaching demands EU law places on national courts to reconsider decisions having the authority of res judicata to remedy a judgment incompatible with EU law. Furthermore, the purpose is also to examine how the Swedish supreme court's judgment in case Ö 5731-18 aligns with the demands of EU law. To answer the raised questions, the paper uses the methodology of EU law.
In the absence of EU legislation, it is for each member state to lay down its own procedural rules. This constitutes the principle of national procedural autonomy. The procedural rules governing rights of EU law must not be any less favourable than those governing similar national actions (principle of equivalence), nor render it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred upon individuals by EU law (principle of effectiveness).
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) maintains the importance of res judicata to ensure the stability of the legal order. Consequently, EU law does not require national courts to disapply national rules which confirm the finality of judgments. However, the ECJ has in its rulings in Lucchini and Fallimento Olimpiclub stated that union law under the certain circumstances precludes the application of national rules on res judicata. The circumstances held such extensive obstacles to the effectiveness of EU law that the interest of finality could not be justified. In the absence of certain circumstances, there needs to be applicable national procedural rules on retrial to render the situation compatible with EU law. If that possibility exists, it must prevail under the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.
The Swedish supreme court's decision restrained the possibility of retrial to cases where national courts have manifestly diverged from the ECJ's interpretation in a preliminary ruling connected to the case. In its judgment the supreme court emphasized the national procedural autonomy and was otherwise quiet about additional obligations under EU law. Therefore, one might argue that the Swedish supreme court's judgment is not fully uniform with EU law.}},
author = {{Eriksson, Mathias}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Rättskraft, resning och EU – Unionsrättens krav på omprövning}},
year = {{2020}},
}